Also Turning Ugly: USFK Relocation

I wish I had the time to cover the latest Camp Humphreys relocation protests in the detail they deserve, given that I spent seven months of my life there defending young, misunderstood soldiers who were wrongly accused of various things. Humphreys, one of the least pleasant sites in the USFK portfolio, has its advantages: cheap land, proximity to Osan Air Base, and a location south of Seoul and out of artillery range. It makes sense to move most of the U.S. Army forces there — that is, if you think they should be there at all.

(There are some great old 1970’s-vintage pics of Humphreys here; Anjung-ri had changed remarkably little when I first showed up there.)

The Dong-a Ilbo has this extremely detailed account of the running battle that took place there earlier this week. I see the protestors as two groups — local farmers and hard-core leftists from Seoul. Of the latter, my sympathies (or lack thereof) are probably clear enough by now. Of the former, though, I have to say that I was very saddened to see this:

In Daechu-ri and Dodu-ri, where residents mounted particularly stubborn resistance, only 51 percent of the 297 households agreed to the terms of the government’s land purchases. The rest has been forced to accept the government’s offers by the court. At present, approximately 700,000 pyeong is deposited with the court.

The holdout residents complainingly point out, “The compensation from the government is about 140,000 won per pyeong. But land price in neighboring areas, which do not belong to the relocation plan, is 200,000 to 300,000 won per pyeong. We don’t want to leave the place where we have lived generation after generation.

The Defense Ministry, however, responds with, “The ministry has offered a variety of options, but it’s the local residents who reject them. It is the “˜anti-American military presence’ outsiders who cause a stir among the locals most of the time.

It’s always bad when people are moved away from their homes and land for any reason, but it is a genuine outrage if they’re also being financially ruined. Under the circumstances, I’d protest, too. I’m sure the leftists would still try to exploit them if the compensation were more than adequate. They’re there because they hate America. But if the South Korean government wants a big U.S. base on its soil, it owes its citizens fair compensation.

If anyone has any more detailed knowledge, by all means let me know. Korea isn’t a third-world backwater, and its government has both the means and the obligation to take care of its own citizens. Of course, it would obviously prefer to have the Americans not only defend their country, supply the manpower, gas, ammo, equipment, etc., but also pay that increased compensation, and of course, the messes we are leaving behind us.

Traditionally, the way this worked was as follows. First, the Koreans would make a series of demands, reasonable and otherwise. Second, the Americans would make a counteroffer. Third, the Koreans would leak a very possibly distorted characterization of the U.S. position to reliable journalists and civic groups, which would then show up and protest against the “colonialist” American demands. Finally, the Americans would give the Koreans most of what they wanted. Here’s a living, breathing example. Soon after we completed all of these SOFA revisions, the Korean side seemingly wanted to renegotiate most of them. Finally, it seems the U.S. side is tired of the old game:

Speaking at a meeting of the Korea Retired Generals and Admirals Association, General Bell said the handover of the former bases is being complicated by Seoul’s demands that the United States repair any environmental damage in the bases to be relocated from northern Gyeonggi province and Seoul city to more southern locations.

A Korean translation of the general’s comments was posted on the association’s Web site yesterday.

General Bell complained that U.S. maintenance of empty bases now costs $500,000 per month while the whole question of an environmental cleanup is being debated. He pointed to precedents in Germany and Japan, where environmental damage repair is a host-country obligation.

The two sides agreed to add environmental clauses to the Status of Forces Agreement in 2001, one that says the United States will “respect” Korean environmental laws. An official at the Defense Ministry’s environmental office said the whole matter is negotiable.

Got that? What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.

The Ministry of Environment says that the polluter should pay. The defense minister, Yoon Kwang-ung, has reportedly been pushing the Environment Ministry to strike an agreement on the matters, but negotiations are still stalled, as they have been for several years. But whatever the reason for the delay, a Korean military official said yesterday, the problem has raised U.S. suspicions that Seoul is using the matter to boost its political standing with environmentalists.”The U.S. thinks that the Korean government is not really making any effort to stop civic groups’ activities,” he said.

Eureka.